Talk:M-44 Hammerhead
Because of the availability of this as a download, I think it would be a fair assumption that no "current" planet will support its use. DLC planets and missions surely will, but otherwise, why make it DLC if it can be used on current ones? Maybe some areas will unlock to make its immediate download worthwhile. Maybe it will at least come packaged with a drivable planet.--Xaero Dumort 18:33, January 19, 2010 (UTC) :I think it's just an, "Everything's cooler with hover," vehicle. Functionally similar to the Mako, but just drives different. Maybe isn't utterly defeated by lava lakes. That's my complete speculation, anyways. Boter 04:04, January 21, 2010 (UTC) I think the DLC comes with new maps, so it will likely only be useful on those planets. (Frosted Vert 17:37, January 21, 2010 (UTC)) Looks like the Hammerhead is out or in beta right now. There are some illicit and exclusive links around the net that allow for the download of this content already. I really hate being "legal" lol; I have to wait on everything >_> Mass Effect 3 In the most recent Game Informer (isuue 204), there is an interview with Casey Hudson. He says "we've been working on a new vehicle that will appear in future DLC and potentially Mass Effect 3". It is reasonable to assume this is referring to the hammerhead. Should it be put in this article that it will most likely appear in ME3, or is that speculation? Dtemps123 02:35, March 17, 2010 (UTC) :I'm going to have to say that unless it's specifically stated that the vehicle in question is the Hammerhead, it's speculation. We have an unnamed vehicle (that could be the Hammerhead) that may be featured in ME3. SpartHawg948 03:32, March 17, 2010 (UTC) The M57 page - the place to moan about the Mako Kind of funny to see that's what this page is all about... Dch2404 17:04, February 21, 2010 (UTC) Designation? Does anyone know yet what the designation for the Hammerhead is? M29 Grizzly, M35 Mako, ??? Hammerhead? Boter 04:04, January 21, 2010 (UTC) :Not yet, but most likely higher than 35, maybe M41 to continue a 6 digit gap?--Xaero Dumort 04:34, January 21, 2010 (UTC) ::Well, if the SA numbering system is anything like the numbering systems used by contemporary militaries, there would only be a 6 digit gap if there were 5 models in between the Mako and the Hammerhead. Of course, since the Hammerhead is a tank, and the Grizzly and Mako are IFVs, it shouldn't be automatically assumed that they use the same numbering/designation system. SpartHawg948 06:56, January 21, 2010 (UTC) :::Yeah, I wasn't even sure of the first letter, which is why I didn't say M??. I think their explanation for the difference would be its mode of transport - ground or hover. I think the Mako has been referred to as a tank a few times... I could be wrong, though. *looks it up* Hm, nope. Still, I wonder if calling the Hammerhead a "tank" is just something for the masses to easily latch on to - a moving vehicle with a big turret - but it'll still be functionally similar to a Mako. We'll see in a week and a half, I guess. (Fun fact - I didn't know about the Mako's big gun until halfway through my first play-through. First Thresher Maw was a pain in the rear.) Boter 07:04, January 21, 2010 (UTC) ::::Pretty sure the Mako was never referred to as a tank, at least not in the game. The Codex specifically refers to it as an infantry fighting vehiclc. As for calling the Hammerhead a tank, I don't see any reason to assume it would be a term for the "masses" to easily latch onto. If that was the case the Mako would also likely be called a tank, since the average civilian doesn't know the difference between a tank or an IFV, and they've generally never even heard the term IFV. After all, the Mako is a moving vehicle with a big turret too. So yeah, I think it's safe to say that if it's being called a tank, it's b/c it's a tank. SpartHawg948 07:12, January 21, 2010 (UTC) :::::Fair enough. Can't wait to find out in five days :D Boter 20:31, January 21, 2010 (UTC) ::::::I count three designations: M29 Grizzly, M35 Mako, M38 Moby. The last is on Bioware's page about the Mako. The name Moby is a reference to the titular character in Moby Dick, and the appearance of the Mako painted in white. The Moby is an ambulance. I believe Arcelia Silva Martinez or Simon Atwell referred to the Mako as a tank.Throwback 04:55, January 25, 2010 (UTC) Maybe it will work like the shuttle - everyone will actually walk/jump/hop/whatever into it instead of magically getting in via osmosis. All I can think of (after playing through at least half of the game) is that it will only be able to be used on new maps (maybe a whole line of them?) If not, then, damn, that's one small tank o_o. Anyways, I hope it will actually FEEL like a tank when you use it, and not some cheesy spinoff or something. Possibly could be used as a mobile base (as in weapon selection/armormaybe even tech upgrades?) or something. Hopefully when they put this in it will also add floor #5 for the Normandy, as I get ticked off seeing it and going to it in a cutscene but not being able to go to it normally. Maybe tank upgrades? Anywho. Brainfart over. :Maybe the planets are already in the game and you just need to download the Hammerhead to access them.--ScorpSt 07:44, February 6, 2010 (UTC) @Sparthawg948: Military designations are "Model" and "Year" meaning that a tank implemented in 1995 would be designated as the "M95", if you make upgrades it might get an adendum to the model name in the form of "M95a1" or "M95a2" Then there's usually further designations that might indicate major upgrades, like on an M113 you change the gearbox and engine as well as the fuel tanks and you get an M113G3 or an M113a3G3 as an example, another designation would be according to country (or in this case a planet would be more appropriate) or if it has several roles it might get another adendum, like the CV90 getting becoming the CV9040 or CV90120 when outfitted with a 40mm gun or a 120mm mortar/barrel. 14:24, February 6, 2010 (UTC) Please don't mention a certain tv show... please... it's that bunch o' numbers you put there :P So the M1 Abrahms tank was designed and built, when, 2001? 1901? The M1 Abrahms was introduced in 1980, so you are very much incorrect about the year being the model number. In the military, For ships and aircraft, it's done in sequential design numbers, normally. Exceptions: F117, SR-71... No idea on tanks, but it definitely isn't *year*. AlexMcpherson 23:32, February 6, 2010 (UTC) We have five military-type vehicles with known designations: the M29 Grizzly, the M35 Mako, the M38 'Moby' (variant of the M35, used as an ambulance), the M57 Hammerhead, and the M-080.Throwback 00:00, February 7, 2010 (UTC) The designation isn't always by year, true but it is or have been a very common way of designating weapons and vehicles, maybe I should have phrased it better but I have personal experience with the year corresponding with the designation on several occations. I'm not just throwing some ridiculous idea out there, it has a basis in fact and might be relevant (I'm not quite sure of what year mass effect is portrayed in). Also, wth do you mean by mentioning a TV-show?! 14:00, February 15, 2010 (UTC) :You asked so... Ahem. the show '90210' (You put 90120) ... *shudder*. Don't like that show. AlexMcpherson 16:54, February 15, 2010 (UTC) He said 90120...Anyway, in-game the hammerhead is referred to as an IFV not a tank. Dtemps123 00:54, March 25, 2010 (UTC) :: Its not a "tank", tanks are defined as a defensive and offensive ATV, the Hammerhead is anything but defensive and an ATV -- try getting a real hover-craft to go uphill; its like pulling I-Teeth. No I wasn't armor, I was signal corps to all the army peps =P 07:15, April 18, 2010 (UTC) Actually, it is a tank. Your definition only seems to cover one kind of tank, the Main Battle Tank, which is indeed a large, heavily armed and armored all-terrain vehicle optimized for offense and defense. But there are many types of tank. And the M-44 would seem to be just about right for a light tank. Light tanks tend to be fast, nimble, lightly armored, and moderately to heavily armed, and the M-44 is all of these things. SpartHawg948 07:27, April 18, 2010 (UTC) New PC patch notes points to Hammerhead release coming soon? http://social.bioware.com/page/me2-patches Changes to 1.01 * Fixed video hitching and crashes related to single core machines. * Single core users may experience short periods of black screen that may last up a few seconds between level loads, cinematic transitions or movies. * In rare cases, some single core users may notice dialog lines in certain conversations may be delayed up to a few seconds. * Fixed an issue where it appears ammunition can be picked up, but can't. * Fixed an issue where all Codex entries were marked as 'viewed', even if the player chose not to view them. * Fixed an issue where weapon icons are re-organized after downloadable content is used. * Fixed an issue where pressing F9 after the mission completion screen reset Shepard to Level 1. * Fixed an issue where remapping the right mouse button blocks camera control in the command HUD. * Fixed an issue where remapping the 'use' command affects the decryption minigame. * Fixed an issue where users were not prompted to restart when logging in to a different EA Online account. * Fixed an issue where movies do not play in DLC. * It is recommended that players reset their keyboard mapping to default values to ensure proper vehicle control. * Added useful messaging during the ME1 save game import. * Weapon icon for henchmen never changes from Collector Assault Rifle. * Czech language - Issues with Czech localization (subtitles) were amended, all text was corrected and improved. * Fixed an issue where the Mass Effect 2 launcher was being associated with files that have no extension. * Fixed an issue where uninstalling the game under Windows Vista or Windows 7 might uninstall Mass Effect 1. Here's hoping. I'm just sitting on a completed game waiting for the DLC to keep coming down the pipe.--Xaero Dumort 08:32, February 24, 2010 (UTC) Firewalker pack Finally, some good news! Signed by Naihilus Ceris 03:09, February 26, 2010 (UTC) :But I want it now!--Xaero Dumort 06:29, February 26, 2010 (UTC) ::Indeed! I too prefer instant gratification! :) SpartHawg948 06:32, February 26, 2010 (UTC) :: According to Wikipedia, new ME2 DLC (Firewalker pack, I assume) will be shown at Game Developer Conference taking place from March 9-13; knowing Bioware, this means that we will get Hammerhead quite soon! |Signed by Naihilus Ceris| 15:06, February 26, 2010 (UTC) Hammerhead footage There is now footage of the Hammerhead hereunder the section, "Here comes the hammer." Bastian964 21:45, March 6, 2010 (UTC) Pictures Since actual footage of the Hammerhead was released, the pictures in this article need to be updated. The current pictures are of earlier designs for the Hammerhead.Bastian964 02:09, March 7, 2010 (UTC) The art one is old but not the screenshot. It looks exactly like the Hammerhead in the newest screenshots on the game site. There is no difference so the screenshot is not a picture of an "earlier" version of the Hammerhead. It is a picture of the same Hammerhead that we will all get tomorrow. :Watch the video or actually look at the screenshots (those weren't release today by the way). Look at the fins. Then come back and tell just how wrong you were. Bastian964 19:26, March 22, 2010 (UTC) How can you trust leaked videos from pirates? Can not you wait for the DLC to be released before making conclusions? :Yah, you can. Especially since the gamespot trailer was the video I was referring to. Also its almost impossible to fake videos like that without investing months of your time.Bastian964 02:37, March 25, 2010 (UTC) M-44 - not M57 Now that the DLC is out and we know the proper designation, shouldn't the page title be changed? The Trivia section can include mention of the fact that up until release, it was shown to be M57 in screenshots, videos, etc. HOLY CRAP!OMG! This thing moves at insane speeds and jumps ridiculously high.Fast enough that boosting from the right distance can launch a geth across the map,and high enough that jumping to max hight and landing on a geth colossus' back will kill it immediately :First not an appropite title for a, well any seciton of a page. Two sign your posts. Lancer1289 01:55, March 24, 2010 (UTC) :: lighten up. this is a discussion page on a video game wiki, who cares what someone puts here. and i am guessing that not everyone signs all their posts. ~ :::This is a discussion page on a video game wiki. And discussion pages are for discussing the article, not for inane comments like the first one here. The admins care, as it's our job to make sure that the policies of the site are being followed. And while it is true that not everyone signs all their posts, we do ask that everyone sign all their posts, and while it's accepted that anonymous editors usually don't, we do expect all registered users (such as the one who started this thread and didn't sign their post) to sign their posts. Hope this helped clear up the issues raised in your lovely comment. SpartHawg948 20:42, March 30, 2010 (UTC) ::::What I am saying is that instead of nitpicking about the title or him not signing his posts, maybe addressing the content of his post would be more efficient. I agree that the first post is inappropriate, but posts like the second one don't help people like the original poster. It is clear the the he doesn't care about any of that, so to bring up the issue like the second poster did is counterproductive. Sorry about my first comment, my head was pounding, and wasn't in a good mood. Not that that is a good excuse. :::Addressing the content of the post, eh? And what, exactly, would be the proper way of addressing the content of the first post? It was a comment, not a query. I see no requests for help, and as such, see nothing wrong with the second post. The user who posted it was, after all, seeking to enlighten the first poster on proper posting etiquette. Nothing counterproductive about it. Certainly nothing as counterproductive as or nitpicky as, say, the third post. SpartHawg948 01:02, April 2, 2010 (UTC) The point is that he is saying something that will likely lead to nowhere. While I respect his attempt to help, responding in such a way to a post such as the first one is no way to solve the issue. The manner he says it to the first poster seems belittling to me. Nobody likes to be talked down to. And by "addressing the content", I mean that instead of pointing out the inappropriate title or lack of a signing, say something about how the post itself doesn't belong on the page. I acknowledge the third post is not the most productive thing in the world, and if you want it, you have my apology. I don't wish to carry this issue any further. 01:44, April 2, 2010 (UTC) First of all, I know this thread is dead (Hey, a rhyme!) but I just had to say this. I think he originally wanted Lancer to make a post like: "Totally, dude! You're so right on the money with that shiz-nit!" :P Ah, I gotta get to sleep. --Effectofthemassvariety 09:38, June 14, 2010 (UTC) 'Hammerhead Ammo' i'm noticing that the Hammerhead uses the same reticle and ammo count as the Heavy Weapons. not really sure how one would write that up, but the fact that this thing seems to be using Power Cells for it's main cannon seems significant enough to warrant mention in the article. 03:52, April 8, 2010 (UTC) :It doesn't. There's a glitch where the Hammerhead uses the same targeting reticule as whatever weapon you were last using. Switch your weapons, and your reticule should change. That's what happened for me. --Twentyfists 17:19, May 22, 2010 (UTC) Features It should be added in that the Hammerhead is a prototype developed by Cerberus, as well as lacking kinetic barriers and a secondary weapon. That and the fact that it has a boost feature to me seems like information that would be useful to new players and people interested in the vehicle. I also do not think it is a heavy assault vehicle, as it is far too fragile, and explodes under light Pulse Rifle fire. It seems to be more of a light assault vehicle. MasterChief117 17:57, April 21, 2010 (UTC) :Where does it say it was developed by Cerberus? No where in the game does it say that. The lack of kinetic barriers and secondary weapon is in the artice, I kept that, however the boost feature should be added. As to the heavy assault vehice, it seems to be a light tank rather than a heavy vehice so that can be changed. Again though, WHERE does it say that Cerberus develped the vehicle? From the codex entry it looks to be a common vehice. While there is a Cerberus mark on the vehicle, however so does the Kodiak, but that is also used by the Alliance. Lancer1289 22:14, April 21, 2010 (UTC) Yup. As I noted above recently, most people don't realize that there are many types of tank. When civilians hear tank, they automatically thing of Main Battle Tanks like the M1 Abrams MBT. There are many other types of tank, such as the light tank. Light tanks tend to be fast, lightly armored, and moderately to heavily armed. Sound like any vehicles we know? SpartHawg948 22:22, April 21, 2010 (UTC) Regarding the development of the M-44, it belongs or is affiliated with Project Firewalker, a Cerberus project that IIRC was developing the vehicle when the transport carrying it crashed.MasterChief117 18:54, April 21, 2010 (UTC) :Just because it was assoictated with the Project doens't mean they developed it. Cerberus could have bought it and was planning on using it. That is not enough evidence and is therefore speculation. Lancer1289 22:57, April 21, 2010 (UTC) It is a prototype though. The DLC does mention it being a prototype, and was being shipped in a container when the transport carrying it crashed.MasterChief117 18:59, April 21, 2010 (UTC) :And? The SSV Normandy SR-1 was a prototype too. And Cerberus was able to acquire the plans and build a bigger and better version. Just because it is a prototype, doesn't mean it's a Cerberus-developed prototype. SpartHawg948 03:05, April 22, 2010 (UTC) On the subject of what the Hammerhead is, the answer that it is an IFV (an infantry fighting vehicle) as stated in the codex. Bastian964 14:13, April 22, 2010 (UTC) Since the survey team that was testing the Hammerhead apparently was only connected to Cerberus, it's possible that the vehicle was developed by another party outside Cerberus. I'm thinking that the Hammerhead's paint job and Cerberus logos exclude the Alliance from being the Hammerhead's creator, though. It was more likely a private company that Cerberus either hired or owns that developed this vehicle. Essentially that would be no different from Cerberus itself developing it, but we're all splitting hairs over something inconsequential. -- Commdor (Talk) 15:05, April 22, 2010 (UTC) Kinetic Barriers on M44 Hammerhead First posting guys so sorry if the format is wrong. Just wanted to say that there's inconsistency in whether the Hammerhead actually has kinetic barriers or not. While the wiki posting here says it "lacks kinetic barriers", and from taking fire in the DLC missions no kinetic barriers appear to exist on the IFV, the codex clearly states that the M44 "retains most features of interplanetary fighting vehicles: an airtight interior, 360-degree kinetic barriers, and a guided missile system ensuring accuracy during even aggressive maneuvering." Forgive me if this has been brought up before. Thanks. Magusbs 00:56, July 16, 2010 (UTC) :Well, since it's your first post, I suppose I can go easy on you... :P In the future, please put new posts at the bottom of the page, instead of at the top. It makes it much simpler for us should we have to archive the page, as this is done chronologically, so having it go from oldest at the top to newest at the bottom really simplifies it. Also, when making a new section, please use a Level 2 headline (which can be done by putting on either side of the title) as opposed to a level 3( ), and no underlining, please. :Now, on to the actual issue. The likeliest explanation is that the M-44 Shep and Co. use in game is a prototype, not a production model. The Codex seems to describe the actual finished product (especially since it talks about factory-issue ones lacking an altimeter), and Shepard isn't using a finished product. SpartHawg948 01:08, July 16, 2010 (UTC) : Thanks for the advice about formatting, I'll be sure to do it correctly from now on. And the codex being for a finished vehicle rather than the Shepard crew prototype makes sense, thanks for the response.Magusbs 01:29, July 16, 2010 (UTC) I would definitely love if it had those barriers, as one of my favourite battle tactics with the mako was running over enemies and retreating when the shields got too low. This damn Hammerhead has problems running over a single damn geth, as the pulse rifle fire and the hit can set it on fire ._. Not to mention the Geth Colossus and its homing, one hit kill bolts. It's just ridiculous, I'd have better chance of staying alive on foot for god's sake! --JohnEdwa 20:29, September 18, 2010 (UTC) Unable to save while in Hammerhead? Is saving disabled while you're in the Hammerhead? I've noticed that I'm not able to save the game when I'm using one, and I'm wondering it is a bug or a feature? I don't see anything mentioning that, but it could be the thing is so fast most people don't notice. Harry Voyager 04:18, September 21, 2010 (UTC) :Not sure if it is a bug or a feature, but no you can't save while in the Hammerhead. It is unknown why, but it was brought up before somewhere on this site. And I believe it is mentioned in the walkthoughs where appropiate, not sure on that one however. Lancer1289 04:22, September 21, 2010 (UTC) Overlord? If I already have firewalker but haven;t done it, as well as Overlord, does the aquisition of the Hammerhead change? As in, do I automatically have it, thanks to Overlord? Unless Overlord has it's own aquisition.NickTyrong 02:32, January 31, 2011 (UTC) :I believe this came up somewhere else, but I can't find it. Basically if you haven't downloaded or played through Firewalker, you still get the Hammerhead upon starting Overlord (assignment). Lancer1289 02:38, January 31, 2011 (UTC) ::So even if I have firewalker, but haven;t played it yet, I'll automatically get the hammerhead if I also have overlord? Then can I still get it like normal on firewalker?NickTyrong 02:43, January 31, 2011 (UTC) :::First Question: Yes. Second Question: As far as I know. I have never done Firewalker after Overlord. Lancer1289 02:46, January 31, 2011 (UTC) ::::Not DOING firewalker after, just HAVING it.NickTyrong 02:55, January 31, 2011 (UTC) A newer and more effective way of using the Hammerhead I was mucking around last night on the Firewalker missions and I accidentally hit the jump button instead of the boost button to knock a Geth Prime over. I landed on it and crushed it, instantly killing it. I found that besides Cerberus Turrets that you can actually hover and drop down on any opposition and crush them, killing them instantaneously. It sometimes takes several tries to get it to work on Colossi, but it works without fail on EVERYTHING else (again, except Cerberus Turrets.) This is just a heads up for anyone who wants an easier, more reliable and safer way to use the Hammerhead... OR who just wants to stomp Geth Mario style. ;) --Nick Burchell 11:34, February 25, 2012 (UTC) :Things like this go into the walkthrough articles themselves as appropriate, not into this article. Lancer1289 17:04, February 25, 2012 (UTC) Revealing the fact that the Hammerhead has a secondary and much more powerful method of attack is not by any means a 'walkthrough' subject. In fact, the main Hammerhead page should probably be updated to reflect this discovery. --Nick Burchell 01:08, February 26, 2012 (UTC) :No because it specifically deals with a situational style of fighting, and is not part of the main armament of the vehicle. It is specifically walkthrough information and belongs there. Lancer1289 01:26, February 26, 2012 (UTC) If it does more damage than the main gun and can be used on nearly anything, then there's nothing 'situational' about it. It belongs on the main page. Discussion closed. :Ending your comment how you did tells me that you want what you what, and don't care about anything else. That isn't how it works here. This will not be present in the article because of what I already said. It belongs in the walkthroughs because it is walkthrough style information. Lancer1289 02:22, February 26, 2012 (UTC) That's rich coming from you. I suggest you vacate this site permanently. :And there is no need for insulting language. Lancer1289 02:35, February 26, 2012 (UTC) Now I know you're just trolling and fabricating lies. Any further responses from you will be deleted on sight. :I would suggest you curtail your responses to keep them appropriate because you are hovering on a ban already, and any further violations will lead to it. And note, that if you do remove my comments from this page, you will break site policy and will be banned. Lancer1289 02:39, February 26, 2012 (UTC) Hammerhead in ME3 trailer Several of Hammerheads are certainly seen in Take Back Earth cinematic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYDmq1TeDFs#t=144s for example. 09:06, September 21, 2012 (UTC) :Relevance to this talk page or the article? Lancer1289 (talk) 18:24, September 21, 2012 (UTC) ::The relevance of a cinematic featuring the target object of the article should be obvious -- it directly mentions the object and, in this case since it's pre-release material, also hints that the object might be present in Mass Effect 3 (which it has turned out it isn't -- at least not in a relevant way). Failure to see this makes me think I might smell a troll (as does several other of your posts on this page).